科学杂志发表18位科学家公开信：调查新冠病毒起源

科学杂志发表18位科学家公开信，要求客观公正地调查新冠病毒起源，指出世卫组织报告中，自然溢出和实验室事故两种理论“没有得到均衡的考虑”。科学家呼吁”对自然溢出和实验室溢出的假设都认真对待“。

以下是原文翻译：

2019年12月30日，新发疾病监测项目（the Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases）向全世界通报了中国武汉发生的不明原因的肺炎。自那时起，科学家们在了解致病因子--严重急性呼吸系统综合症冠状病毒2（SARS-CoV-2）、其传播、发病机制以及通过疫苗、治疗剂和非药物干预措施的缓解方面取得了显著进展。然而，仍然需要更多的调查来确定该大流行病的起源。实验室意外泄露（accidental release from a lab）和人畜共通病原溢出（zoonotic spillover）的理论都仍然可行。了解COVID-19是如何出现的，对于告知全球战略以减少未来爆发的风险至关重要。

2020年5月，世界卫生大会要求世界卫生组织（WHO）总干事与合作伙伴密切合作，确定SARS-CoV-2的来源。11月，中国-世卫组织联合研究的职权范围被公布。研究第一阶段的信息、数据和样本是由研究小组的中方成员收集和总结的；研究小组的其他成员在此基础上进行分析。虽然没有发现明确支持自然溢出或实验室事故的结论，但研究小组评估了人畜共患的中间宿主的溢出是 "可能到非常可能"，而实验室事故是 "极其不可能"。此外，这两种理论没有得到均衡的考虑。在报告及其附件的313页中，只有4页涉及实验室事故的可能性。值得注意的是，世卫组织总干事谭德塞评论说，该报告对支持实验室事故的证据考虑不足，并提出提供额外的资源以全面评估这种可能性。

作为具有相关专业知识的科学家，我们同意世卫组织总干事、美国和其他13个国家以及欧洲联盟的意见：进一步澄清这种大流行病的起源是必要的，而且是可行的。我们必须对自然溢出和实验室溢出的假设都认真对待，直到我们有足够的数据。一个合理的调查应该是透明的、客观的、以数据为导向的，包括广泛的专业意见，接受独立的监督，并负责任地管理，以尽量减少利益冲突的影响。公共卫生机构和研究实验室都需要向公众开放其记录。调查人员应记录进行分析和得出结论的数据的真实性和出处，以便独立专家可以复现分析结果。

最后，在一些国家出现令人遗憾的反亚裔情绪的此时，我们要指出，在大流行病开始时，是中国的医生、科学家、记者和公民与世界分享了关于病毒传播的关键信息--往往要付出巨大的个人代价。我们应以同样的决心，在这个困难而重要的问题上促进客观公正的科学讨论。

（译者：钦明方泽忘了密码）

原文：

On 30 December 2019, the Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases notified the world about a pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan, China (1). Since then, scientists have made remarkable progress in understanding the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), its transmission, pathogenesis, and mitigation by vaccines, therapeutics, and non-pharmaceutical interventions. Yet more investigation is still needed to determine the origin of the pandemic. Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable. Knowing how COVID-19 emerged is critical for informing global strategies to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks.

In May 2020, the World Health Assembly requested that the World Health Organization (WHO) director-general work closely with partners to determine the origins of SARS-CoV-2 (2). In November, the Terms of Reference for a China–WHO joint study were released (3). The information, data, and samples for the study's first phase were collected and summarized by the Chinese half of the team; the rest of the team built on this analysis. Although there were no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident, the team assessed a zoonotic spillover from an intermediate host as “likely to very likely,” and a laboratory incident as “extremely unlikely” [(4), p. 9]. Furthermore, the two theories were not given balanced consideration. Only 4 of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes addressed the possibility of a laboratory accident (4). Notably, WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus commented that the report's consideration of evidence supporting a laboratory accident was insufficient and offered to provide additional resources to fully evaluate the possibility (5).

As scientists with relevant expertise, we agree with the WHO director-general (5), the United States and 13 other countries (6), and the European Union (7) that greater clarity about the origins of this pandemic is necessary and feasible to achieve. We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. A proper investigation should be transparent, objective, data-driven, inclusive of broad expertise, subject to independent oversight, and responsibly managed to minimize the impact of conflicts of interest. Public health agencies and research laboratories alike need to open their records to the public. Investigators should document the veracity and provenance of data from which analyses are conducted and conclusions drawn, so that analyses are reproducible by independent experts.

Finally, in this time of unfortunate anti-Asian sentiment in some countries, we note that at the beginning of the pandemic, it was Chinese doctors, scientists, journalists, and citizens who shared with the world crucial information about the spread of the virus—often at great personal cost (8, 9). We should show the same determination in promoting a dispassionate science-based discourse on this difficult but important issue.

1. “Undiagnosed pneumonia—China (Hubei): Request for information,” ProMED post (2019); https://promedmail.org/promed-post/?id=6864153.

2. World Health Assembly Resolution 73.1: COVID-19 response (2020); https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA73/A73_R1-en.pdf

3. WHO, “WHO-convened global study of the origins of SARS-CoV-2” (2020); <www.who.int/publications/m/item/who-convened-global-study-of-the-origins-of-sars-cov-2>

4. WHO, “WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2: China part” (2021); <www.who.int/publications/i/item/who-convened-global-study-of-origins-of-sars-cov-2-china-part>.

5. WHO, “WHO director-general's remarks at the Member State Briefing on the report of the international team studying the origins of SARS-CoV-2” (2021); <www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-remarks-at-the-member-state-briefing-on-the-report-of-the-international-team-studying-the-origins-of-sars-cov-2>

6. US Department of State, “Joint statement on the WHO-Convened COVID-19 origins study” (2021); <www.state.gov/joint-statement-on-the-who-convened-covid-19-origins-study/>.

7. Delegation of the European Union to the UN and other International Organizations in Geneva “EU statement on the WHO-led COVID-19 origins study” (2021); https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/un-geneva/95960/eu-statement-who-led-covid-19-origins-study_en.

8. J. Hollingsworth, Y. Xiong, “The truthtellers: China created a story of the pandemic. These people revealed details Beijing left out,” CNN( 2021)

9. A. Green, L. Wenliang, Lancet 395, 682 (2020).